From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [140.211.166.137]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F41BC000B for ; Fri, 18 Feb 2022 00:54:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E0B6402A2 for ; Fri, 18 Feb 2022 00:54:51 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: smtp4.osuosl.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=tutanota.de Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp4.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 278rRWhxzr9t for ; Fri, 18 Feb 2022 00:54:50 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from w1.tutanota.de (w1.tutanota.de [81.3.6.162]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2139740274 for ; Fri, 18 Feb 2022 00:54:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from w3.tutanota.de (unknown [192.168.1.164]) by w1.tutanota.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2AC21FA0E97; Fri, 18 Feb 2022 00:54:47 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1645145687; s=s1; d=tutanota.de; h=From:From:To:To:Subject:Subject:Content-Description:Content-ID:Content-Type:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Cc:Cc:Date:Date:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:MIME-Version:Message-ID:Message-ID:Reply-To:References:Sender; bh=g2IyhjZscBKCXfc5aoPkl6QpqICdI6hgQmuMR3EfCFc=; b=CEGngPA+JNDxdC/hjnBthuPOvDi8zFB6olymyEb/dQJROciXwbMNKD5H5/MPJbmX tigwi9IjDfCODOo0MLvQr2inkImnGjtFJ4IkLhl8WtD9KadfRedZjgs24ey8qxICQYe AdXeZ5bzi1O6SRvptMqMvrGy8/rxhaCvQbAmBYL3+yU6Spga6iykxkGfofsXLPtEjHl Ecgl/qkVeNPifGxLD/N9lfHYJL8/8grQj6d6wNnG0TeJIkkydb+R0pGL5dWrmGvUbvt SeaHfX7BtVtpbmtcu3d5R7hq6OlfxdFSZh5T9fxq9lB6OSvFaumTUkkyxl6j86VldIG wNAuNwCkyA== Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2022 01:54:47 +0100 (CET) From: Prayank To: aj@erisian.com.au Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_107525_1382399782.1645145687161" X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 18 Feb 2022 08:45:43 +0000 Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Thoughts on fee bumping X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2022 00:54:51 -0000 ------=_Part_107525_1382399782.1645145687161 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > I suspect the "economically rational" choice would be to happily trade off that immediate loss against even a small chance of a simpler policy encouraging higher adoption of bitcoin, _or_ a small chance of more on-chain activity due to higher adoption of bitcoin protocols like lightning and thus a lower chance of an empty mempool in future. Is this another way of saying a few developers will decide RBF policy for miners and they should follow it because it is the only way bitcoin gets more adoption? On-chain activity is dependent on lot of things. I suspect any change in policy will change it any time soon and miners should have the freedom to decide things that aren't consensus rules. Lightning network contributes to on-chain activity only with opening and closing of channels. Based on the chart I see in the below link for channels opened/closed per block, its contribution is less than 1% in fees: https://txstats.com/dashboard/db/lightning-network?orgId=1&from=now-6M&to=now -- Prayank A3B1 E430 2298 178F ------=_Part_107525_1382399782.1645145687161 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> I suspect the "economically rational" choice would be to happily = trade off that immediate loss against even a small chance of a simpler poli= cy encouraging higher adoption of bitcoin, _or_ a small chance of more on-c= hain activity due to higher adoption of bitcoin protocols like lightning an= d thus a lower chance of an empty mempool in future.

Is this another way of saying a few develo= pers will decide RBF policy for miners and they should follow it because it= is the only way bitcoin gets more adoption? On-chain activity is dependent= on lot of things. I suspect any change in policy will change it any time s= oon and miners should have the freedom to decide things that aren't consens= us rules.

Lightning = network contributes to on-chain activity only with opening and closing of c= hannels. Based on the chart I see in the below link for channels opened/clo= sed per block, its contribution is less than 1% in fees:

https://txstats.com/dashboard/db/ligh= tning-network?orgId=3D1&from=3Dnow-6M&to=3Dnow

--
Prayank

A3B1 E430 2298 178F
------=_Part_107525_1382399782.1645145687161--